The Constitution and the Crescent

By Eileen F. Toplansky
Published in The Social Contract
Volume 21, Number 1 (Fall 2010)
Issue theme: "The menace of Islam"
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_21_1/tsc_21_1_toplansky.shtml

Keywords:
constitution shariah law islam muslim quran

The First Amendment to the
Constitution has fallen on hard times in America. Too many have confused the words “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances”1 as an invitation to demolish these
very rights in an effort to accommodate and placate an ideology bent on
destruction.

Yet, the precision of language2 is the key to the
precision of thought. It is vital, in fact, critical that we use this amazing
First Amendment to expose the falsifications that Islamic leaders utilize in
their attempt to impose shariah law. The Constitution and shariah are
diametrically opposed; they are not just differences of conventions; they are
differences in core beliefs and values. To
whitewash them, to ignore them, to wallow in political correctness is to invite
an incursion of foreign belief that is a genuine existential threat to America
and the free world.

As explained in the invaluable report entitled
Shariah: The Threat
to America, “any
system of man-made law is considered illicit under Islamic law, for whose
adherents Allah already has provided the only law permitted, shariah. [Thus] Islam and democracy can never co-exist
in harmony because ‘Allah is the absolute arbiter of values and it is His will
that determines good and evil, right and wrong.’”3 Consequently,
shariah law is inviolate and “cannot be amended to conform to changing human
values and standards.”4 As
authors Andrew C. McCarthy, Harry Edward Soyster, and R. James Woolsey explain,
shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values such as

a. the bedrock proposition
that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;

d. freedom of expression
(including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);

e. economic liberty
(including private property);

f. equal treatment under the law a (including
that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);

g. freedom from cruel and
unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism

h. an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political
controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of federalism and democracy, not
wanton violence.5

A few examples will illuminate the crucial differences between a
democracy and any land where shariah rule prevails. The Islamic world
continually erupts in violent rage when it feels offended. As Michelle Malkin6
has pointed out, German supermodel Claudia Schiffer was threatened with death
after she wore a dress printed with a saying from the
Quran. The Nike Company was
forced to recall 800,000 shoes in 1997 because outraged Muslims claimed the
“Air” logo looked like Arabic script for Allah. In Bologna, Italy, a jihadist
cell plotted to blow up a church, because it displayed a fifteenth century
fresco depicting Mohammed being tormented.

Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist for the Jyllands-Posten
who depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, has been on the run as police
arrested three men charged with plotting to kill him. As Flemming Rose of the
Wall Street Journal explains, “the plot to
kill Mr. Westergaard is not an isolated story, but part of a broader trend that
risks undermining free speech in Europe[.]”7 Currently, a Swedish
artist is under police protection; a Dutch municipal museum refused to show
photos of an Iranian born artist, and in Belarus an editor has been sentenced
to three years in a forced labor camp after republishing some of
Jyllands-Posten’s Muhammad cartoons.

In Egypt, bloggers are incarcerated after having “insulted Islam.”8
In Afghanistan, Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death because he
distributed material about the mistreatment of women in Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali
is under constant surveillance as a result of her courageous writings and film
work. Her book
TheCaged Virgin9 calls for the emancipation
of women living under the tyranny of Islam.

A fatwa has been issued against American cartoonist Molly Norris.
In fact, Ms. Norris has now gone into hiding on the advice of the FBI. Her cartoons will no longer be
published. Several months ago, FBI
officials alerted Norris to what they were treating as a “very serious threat.”10 At that time, Yemeni-American cleric Anwar
al-Aulaqi, said that Norris was a “prime target”11 for execution and
that her “proper abode is hellfire.”12 She and eight other cartoonists have been
targeted for their alleged blasphemous caricatures of the prophet.

Thus, the petulant rage of the Muslim world targets painters,
cartoonists, artists, writers,13 journalists, publishers,
entrepreneurs, and dissidents. The cardinal principle of American democracy is
being chipped away by Islamic dictates. As Robert Spencer has written, “[t]hat
Islamic jihadists can force an American citizen [Molly Norris] into hiding for
exercising her freedom of speech is bad enough; that her cause has aroused only
indifference from the media and the nation’s leading officials is even worse.”14

This tyrannical and fanatical desire to silence criticism is being
aided and abetted by the United Nations which, under the thumb of the
Organization of Islamic Countries15, is being pressured to rewrite
international human-rights standards to curtail the right to free speech. In 2009, the hypocritically named U.N. Human
Rights Council adopted a resolution against the “defamation of religion.”16 Hence, the sharia standard for blasphemy will
soon be the rule of the world.

Unbelievably, the West has not taken concerted efforts to push
back. There are still too many who
cannot or will not fathom the absolute nature of shariah law. Why should
America or any of the democracies continue to tolerate Islamic intolerance? Why the double standard and bowing to the voices
of irrationality?

Repeatedly, the Islamic world with its two-pronged attacks of
violent
jihad or holy war and its stealthier practices known as
dawa (propaganda for Islam)
works to undermine democracy. Islam
cloaks itself as a religion, and the West, in its misguided tolerance, does not
acknowledge how Islam has “exploited the civil liberties and multicultural
proclivities of Western societies for the purpose of destroying the latter from
within.”17

And, herein, is the perverse beauty of shariah law. Its totalitarian nature uses every means
possible to insinuate itself into the fabric of the democracies. And it does so with impunity and no shame
because “it is permissible for a Muslim to lie, or engage in
taqiyya, especially to
non-Muslims, to safeguard himself personally or to protect Islam.”18 Thus, in the fabric of this all-encompassing
Islamic doctrine is a fool-proof camouflage which has been quite successful in
tricking a naïve and blasé Western world.

Consequently, the free world capitulates out of fear and/or a
misplaced sense of respect to Islam. In Spain, a discotheque changes its name
because of pressure from Islamic extremists19 who find the name of
the discotheque and its design “offensive and insulting to their religion.”20 In New Jersey, Derek Fenton loses his job21
with New Jersey Transit for burning pages from the Koran outside the proposed
New York mosque. Yet, burning of the
American flag22 has often been upheld as an expression of free
speech in this country.

Amendment VI of the Bill of Rights speaks about the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State… in essence the right to a fair trial. Amendment VIII states that “excessive bail
shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.”23 Tell that to the Muslim woman who was
buried alive24 to protect the honor of her family. How can a democratic community sit idly by
and accept the evil premise that a woman is to be sacrificed to ensure the
honor of a family? This is astounding
savagery but in the Islamic world, gender inequality is expressly stated in
many parts of the
Quran. Barbaric genital
mutilation is obligatory, as well.

Furthermore, Islamic doctrine “permits the marriage of
pre-pubescent girls. There is no minimum
age for a marriage contract and consummation may take place when the girl is
age eight or nine.”25 As
Nonie Darwish has written in
Cruel and Usual Punishment, “the great majority of
Muslim women are among the poorest and most oppressed in the world.”26 From the sartorial prison of the burqa to the
fact that a woman may never be in the physical presence of a man other than her
husband or close blood relative, Muslim women are held hostage to [sharia] law. Rebellious women end up under house arrest,
beaten or dead.

In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his famous
Letter from
Birmingham Jail, that
“[a]ny law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that
degrades human personality is unjust.”27 What mantle of righteousness or kindness can
be equated with Quranic dictates that debase women in this way? Dr. King spoke about the “sacred values in
[the] Judaeo-Christian heritage—[those] that would bring [the] nation back to
those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in
their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”28

Yet Muslim teachings have no tradition of law that is equal in its
application of justice, or for “rights retained by the people” as stated in
Amendment IX29 of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Quran and
the Hadiths have unequivocally maintained that “jihad” is the ultimate
goal—that is warfare against non-Muslims.

Disturbingly, in a report entitled
Sharia Law in
Britain: A Threat to One Law for All & EqualRights30 the reader learns of a
dual justice system being played out in the land of the Magna Carta. Thus, separate Islamic Sharia Councils31
are meting out justice totally incompatible with English law. In essence,
Muslim tribunals promoting unequal treatment of women seek to impose cultural
and legal values on the lands they plan to conquer—and they are doing it with
the tacit approval of the West.

Freedom of religion, the very first tenet of the Constitution’s
First Amendment is non-existent in shariah-compliant countries. Following a
tradition of Muhammad who said that “two religions cannot exist in the country
of Arabia,”32 non-Muslims are forbidden to practice their religion.
Furthermore, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on
dhimmis or infidels (Christians
and Jews and anyone else who is a non-Muslim) who reside among Muslims. There is no way to seek redress because this
is the law of the land.

• Dhimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or
synagogues.

• Dhimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out
loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.

• Dhimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or
churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.

• Dhimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their
ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to
publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.

• Dhimmis are not allowed
to congregate in the streets during religious festivals.33

Presently, Christian Coptics34 in Egypt have been
reduced to dhimmis under constant threat35 from their Islamic
overlords. How does one reconcile this with the First Amendment that states
that “no law respecting an establishment of freedom” shall be made? When Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf36 of
the New York Ground Zero Mosque controversy states that America is basically a
shariah compliant state, one can only conclude that Rauf has learned well the
art of propaganda and prevarication. Any
other conclusion is willful denial.

Islam is ideological warfare cut from the same cloth as Nazism,
fascism and communism. Walid Shoebat has stated in the film “Obsession”37
that Islam is even more dangerous than Nazism because God himself has
sanctioned the destruction of the infidel!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff are calling for a federal law to
cover threats against free-speech rights, in the wake of “Islamic
extremists…increasingly using intimidation to stifle free expression.”38
McCarthy et al. argue that “in keeping with Article VI of the Constitution,
[the U.S.] should extend bans currently in effect that bar members of hate
groups such as the Ku Klux Klan from
holding positions of trust39 in federal, state, or local governments
or the armed forces of the United States to those who espouse40 or
support shariah.”41

This is particularly pertinent since Dalia Mogahed, a prominent Obama appointee42 supports
Islamic shariah and denies any connection between radical Islam and terrorism.

Freedom-loving Americans need to understand that merely having
freedoms is not the same as exercising them. In 1787, the Constitution of the
United States was signed. Article VI clearly states that “this Constitution
shall be…the supreme Law of the Land.”43 There is
no room for Islamic law in the
United States. If the West continues to capitulate44 to Islamic
intimidation, and, in some cases what amounts to “seditious activities”45
by those residing in the U.S., we will enter a period of dismal darkness from
which there may be no return. We truly
cannot afford the “moral paralysis”46 demonstrated by European democracies
in the 1930s. This is the watershed moment for America.

About the author

Eileen F. Toplansky, born in New York, is currently an adjunct college instructor in New Jersey. A newcomer to the world of conservative writing, she has been featured in American Thinker and is grateful to be able to engage in intellectually stimulating conversations designed to protect and defend the values of America. Active in the 1970s writing campaign to free Russian Jewish refuseniks, Eileen continues to speak out against tyranny.

Copyright 2007 The Social Contract Press, 445 E Mitchell Street, Petoskey, MI 49770; ISSN 1055-145X
(Article copyrights extend to the first date the article was published in The Social Contract)